Both of these lessons have their advantages. Doug goes into rhythm in more detail. One good part of Steve Stine’s lesson is that he talks about leads over different chords. One downside is that neither one talks about playing way up the neck like near 12th fret for best lead sound. Another downside is that both lessons hint at phrasing but don’t really go into details other than saying “do what sounds good”. Doug’s GP6 file that goes with this lesson is amazing because of the lick-o-matic which is not only a technique, it’s an exercise that can be reused for years. The other amazing thing about Doug’s 4-note-lead lesson is that it is the next step up from the previous lesson in week 4 “Riffin It Up” but like x100 (I really liked that week 4 lesson because as silly as it sounds, I hadnt played like that before, like, chord then lead then chord then lead etc, as basic as that probably is, something I totally missed somehow).

Anyways I ran across Steve Stine’s video and thought it was an interesting soloing technique comparison.

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

LOL, extra time because Steve Stine is way too wordy. I like Doug’s conciseness better 😀

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

Also I forgot to add, I dont really know but it seems like this box has more potential if the note names are combined in an exercise (harder with only the 4 note lead though because less note coverage in the small box, the 6 note box may be a better fit for this), to either stay in the same position and start on a different note / emphasize a different note. Steve Stine glosses over this briefly – staying in the same position vs changing positions for different chords. Change modes within the same solo box when adding in the diatonic notes? I think there’s more opportunity for expanding this into a deeper set of exercises? Or is there a neck pattern of moving the 4-note or 6-note box itself which would naturally change modes, but still starting on the same “first” note. It could be an interesting shortcut. Obviously Doug’s pattern 1 and pattern 5 have some commonalities. The other shortcut here is, it is easiest to bend with the 3rd finger right? At least it is for me. But, I’m not sure that bending the root note is usually the typical solo choice (doesnt always sound good) while bending the other notes sounds better, so, a shortcut that avoids the root on the 3rd finger, could be a neat emphasis for practicing a nervousness-proof solo method. Which means if using the concept for diatonic solos then pattern 1 might not be the best choice. I’ll have to remember to practice the 4-note-lead trick moving diagonally between position 1 and position 5.

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

Also I forgot to add, I dont really know but it seems like this box has more potential if the note names are combined in an exercise (harder with only the 4 note lead though because less note coverage in the small box, the 6 note box may be a better fit for this), to either stay in the same position and start on a different note / emphasize a different note. Steve Stine glosses over this briefly – staying in the same position vs changing positions for different chords. Change modes within the same solo box when adding in the diatonic notes?

I think the elegance of Steve’s lesson is that it’s a dead easy shape to remember, and it’s easy to remember where the root is. He’s taken the classic pentatonic minor “shape 1”, and pared it down into a super simple, super easy-to-memorize geometric pattern that includes every note of the pentatonic scale (though not with the root as the lowest note).

Someone who’s been playing for a week or two and takes this lesson at face value and noodles around with it will have an instant sense of accomplishment, and will be able to “jam” against simple rock backing tracks in a semi-intelligent way. And emphasizing the location of the root within the shape, and the need to use it a lot to make things “sound right” is something important that often gets under-emphasized when beginners are taught the pentatonic shapes across six strings.

I’m a big fan of Steve’s work in general, and this is lesson is a great example of why.

one thing to note is Doug’s lesson is part of a larger concept and considers you’ve already learned the five pentatonic scale shapes.
Stine’s lesson is as he described a shortcut to primarily impress your friends and have some jamming fun while still in the beginner stages.
the danger in that is it doesn’t really teach you anything. it’s a shortcut.
Doug’s lesson on the other hand is teaching you how to use two strings with two notes each within the context of the pentatonic scale. those four notes on the two strings can be played on any two strings and notes on any spot on the neck within the pentatonic scale in any pentatonic shape or position.
using these small building blocks to bigger better more interesting licks. or as a bridge from lick to lick. instead of meandering between licks you will have a solid foundation of smaller more simple chunks of the pentatonic scale so you can play with more confidence and purpose throughout the neck.
Stine’s lesson dosn’t do that. again, it’s a shortcut.
he would have been better off teaching this two string five note shape.
and how it repeats the exact same shape two more times for three octaves of soloing. yes it would take longer and probably more than a single lesson. but worth the usefulness in the longterm.

rock and roll ain't pretty; that's why they picked us to play it.

Attachments:

then later that could be expanded to this two string five note pattern.
taught as the C major pentatonic with an explanation of the major/minor relative. once again the same pattern repeats two more times for three octaves of soloing.

rock and roll ain't pretty; that's why they picked us to play it.

Attachments:

one thing to note is Doug’s lesson is part of a larger concept and considers you’ve already learned the five pentatonic scale shapes. Stine’s lesson is as he described a shortcut to primarily impress your friends and have some jamming fun while still in the beginner stages. the danger in that is it doesn’t really teach you anything.

I don’t think there’s any “danger” here. Steve’s lesson and Doug’s lesson have different purposes, for different stages in development. At the early beginner stages, “shortcuts” are a good thing, because they help the beginner understand that you can do things that “sound like music” without having total mastery of the instrument. Similarly, pretty much everyone teaches beginners how to play chord shapes before teaching them about chord construction and harmony. These “small victories” are a useful and emotionally rewarding part of the learning experience.

maybe “danger” was overstating the issue i have with it.
and while beginners are taught chords without learning how chords are constructed they are taught the names of the chords.
my issue is that it is a shortcut without any musical explanation.
of course we all see it as just a snippet from the first pentatonic shape because we know the pentatonic shape. why not just teach that scale shape?
this sort of shortcut seems to be for people who just want to hack on a guitar; not for someone who really wants to learn. i mean Doug is teaching the first pentatonic shape in his first lesson. no need for a shortcut.

I believe both of these lessons can be as advanced as desired, that’s the way I took them.. Steve Stine’s lesson seems like a newbie shortcut but I’ve enjoyed many nites in irish pubs with a blues band, where the frontman-guitarist stays in the exact same box all nite for dozens of typical old school blues songs, yet each song sounds slightly different in terms of leads. Doug’s point is a really really good one (elsewhere in his lessons), that in times of stress especially, going back to “that old school default position, pattern #1” can be a really advanced move.. sometimes the inspiration is there and sometimes the well has run dry, so going back to what seems like beginner-basics, is still a good way to go. One of these days I’m going to be able to step on to some on-stage blues jam (I’ll be so excited 😀 ) and for sure I don’t know if my head would be in a place to do anything other than, go directly to Doug’s 4-note-lead stuff. Even for spending hours in the living room rocking out, Steve’s lesson is a really good jam, and throw in a loop pedal?

Doug’s lickomatic gets rather advanced as it progresses.. Even for a 4-note pattern, doesnt seem like it would be so complex or interesting sounding, yet it is.

I agree that Steve Stine’s youtube lessons are solid but they are like disconnected one-off’s (he has a few series of lessons but they are still kind of stand-alone). Whereas Doug’s are definitely part of that larger structure which gives everything context and builds up. Also Doug follows up by having “the ultimate lead shape” pentagram in the later lesson ;-D (Ok it’s not really a pentagram lol)

The diagonal 5-note-shape is good too, covers more ground (at the expense of having to run thru positions).. where did I see that before as well, it seems so familiar recently, like a Satch or Gilbert interview or something.

I'm an intermediate student of Metal Method. I play seitannic heavy metal. All Kale Seitan! The glutens will be eaten with relish!
And on the Seventh Day, Mustaine said: ∇ ⨯ E = - ∂B / ∂t ; and there was Thrash; and it had a ♭3; and it was good.

I agree that Steve Stine’s youtube lessons are solid but they are like disconnected one-off’s (he has a few series of lessons but they are still kind of stand-alone). Whereas Doug’s are definitely part of that larger structure which gives everything context and builds up.

Steve also sells a DVD instruction program, which I imagine would be more structured than what he offers free on youtube (I’m neither a customer of him nor Doug).